Hamas don’t want peace

[Icanthinkformyselfthanks]

A two day ceasefire was offered to them in return for four hostages but they declined. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said Hamas “once again refused to release even a limited number of hostages to secure a ceasefire and relief for the people of Gaza”.
Isreal has now offered a million dollars for each hostage and safe passage out of Gaza for their captors. Hamas have yet to respond.

I hope that’s not seriously your argument as to why Israel should control Jerusalem.. you’re going to have to come up with something better than that.

DNA tests have shown that Palestinians can trace their roots to the land for thousands of years and that it is likely these people were the the ‘original’ jews who were in most part then converted to Islam and Christianity. The same cannot be said of Ashkenazi and other European jews who migrated following the UN declaration of the state of Israel. In fact you are not allowed to take a DNA test in Israel without a court order as it is likely to show that the settlers have no roots to the land.

A good example of what?

Well, do I agree with international law is a big question. I agree with the concept, I don’t agree with some of the content, some treaties between countries Hobbs people advantages over other residents of the same country through an accident of birth for example. Do I agree with some of the enforcement, no, again often it is politicised and many enforcers and “peacekeepers” lack the courage to do humane things.

What are my views on the jurisprudence of international law, again this is complex and requires a focused answer to jace any meaning.

So yes it’s a big question, the very fact you seem to think it is black and white highlights your ignorance in this area.

So, as I have asked, please clarify your question. Then we can address the specific point you are making.

Feelingathomenow · Today 09:53

I can see Hamas exist because the want the land Israel occupies and think it should be an Islamic state rather than Jewish.

Most of it is occupied illegally, the result of ethnic cleansing by the Israelis. It seems likely that Gaza will also be taken.

Hopefully the Gazans who don't support Hamas will rebel against them and free the hostages. Or work together with the IDF to release themselves from Hamas' iron grip.

Thanks for the answer. I am of course - happy to admit - 100% ignorant on how you interpret the framework of international laws.

You vaguely accept an idea, but you prefer it would be different in some instances.

This clarity helps. For example, when we say 'war crimes', 'genocide', 'breach of humanitarian laws, of Vienna or Geneva conventions' , 'occupation', 'protections of civilians' etc, etc - all these reference some international laws. Of course these laws don't have a solid enforcement mechanism [because we do not have a world government with a world army, and that's not a bad thing that we don't have those].

If you don't fully agree with the laws mentioned above, then 'war crimes', 'human rights' don't mean much to you in the current scenario.

So, in my thinking the boundaries of 3000 years ago are a piece of history irrelevant to today's reality. And in your mind it matters.
In my view, say, Turkey has got nothing to do with Christmas, though many do cook turkeys for their dinner (that's reference to Jerusalem).

It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion when we have different fundamentals.

Gazan's are now in IDF's grip. That's their biggest problem.

Have you thought for even a moment how practically that would be possible? Ignoring the absurdity of expecting a population displaced, maimed and exhausted being able to rise up against armed militants - any hostage freed would most likely be shot by the IDF if we are looking at patterns of behaviour even if they were when waving white flags. The IDF are busy shooting injured children as young as 3. If you really think they would "work with the Gazans" or in any way are trying to free the hostages you need to keep up with the news.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7893vpy2gqo.amp

@Feelingathomenow I noticed your earlier comment regarding the appalling behaviour of Hamas you cited many reports by Human rights organisations incl Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch. Can we assume then that you are in agreement with the definition of human rights law under international law and you trust these organisations to report on violations of human rights?

Again, that is not a straightforward answer. There are some aspects/and positions of Amnesty international I don’t agree with. I think only a fool would blindly agree with the position of any organisation. Any organisation has an agenda and motive and it would always be nevesssry to see any individual report on the light of this much larger picture.

There does seem to be a proliferation of the expectation of black and white thinking from certain quarters

I think you'd agree that it's abit difficult given they are being killed by the IDF as we speak.. I'd love to know if you would work with someone who's killed most of your family members?

So you did or didn't agree with the reports you send regarding human rights violations by Hamas? You were quoting them as evidence of Hamas brutality so it reads as you agree those reports were accurate

There are some aspects/and positions of Amnesty international I don’t agree with
Their reports of Israeli violations by any chance?

@Feelingathomenow
I agree with the concept, I don’t agree with some of the content, some treaties between countries Hobbs people advantages over other residents of the same country through an accident of birth for example.
Which countries are you referring to here?

Do I agree with some of the enforcement, no, again often it is politicised and many enforcers and “peacekeepers” lack the courage to do humane things.
Well there is no official enforcement of international law. Peacekeepers are not their to enforce international law. Which humane things do you think peacekeepers lack the courage for?

Well, of course certain concepts have legal definitions, we can agree on that, but like any law it can be interpreted in different way.

You asked whether I agreed with international law. You are still not asking me a question that is answerable to any meaningful extent. You need to be asking whether I agree if a certain law has been breached, by what standards that law is being interpreted, if relevant whether there are any meaningful mitigations. Whether there are any factors which have been used to reach those conclusions and whether the law is, in itself both legal and sensible. Thirst would be fundamental questions you should ask when looking at a situation/ it’s called critical thinking.

Yes, I suspect we have very different ways of looking at the world. And no, it’s probably worthless is having any further discussion unless you can engage in a serious debate.

One thing that would immediately come to mind, only because I’ve looked at it in the last could of days would be India (and actually Pakistan) - despite all the efforts Labour have gone with non- dons those who have lived all their lives in the Uk are going to continue to be able to hold a lot of their assets outside the UK IHT net, unlike most other non-doms. (TThis has been specifically maintained in the Budget). Why?

Ask Sir Michael Rose about the UN lacking courage whilst he listened to his men bleeding to death.

Ok so you have issue with a bilateral treaty between the UK amd Pakistan. Are those the only parts of International law you have issue with? I think when we are discussing international law relating to human rights, war, genocide, apartheid etc as this is a board about CITME. Do you agree with the international laws relating to these? As you are referencing Bosnia, you do agree with the findings that it was a genocide under international law?

@Feelingathomenow
I did not ask you whether you agree with international law, I asked whether you agreed to accept the framework.

I'm not a lawyer, and by your answers you are not either.
If you don't accept the legal framework (my first question), what's the point of asking you if you think a law's been breached? I could out of curiosity, but for the argument it's irrelevant.
You sound as if we are judging the situation. I'd leave it to ICJ / ICC or whatever future court's jurisdiction will be internationally accepted.

As for black and white, you are right, my views are very black and white now.
It's because I think we have one life and the death is final.
I think killing children is not acceptable.
Killing unarmed civilians is wrong too.
Starving people is wrong.
Bombing refugee camps is inhumane.
You are right, it's pointless arguing with me because I won't accept nuances here.

11:15 today you said “I'm asking you if you agree with the principle of international law” I answered clearly that I agree with the concept of international law. You even quoted this. This apparently wasn’t good enough.

I think we can all agree children or anyone dying is terrible, The issue you’re refusing to discuss is how this ends. The Palestinians have also been responsible for the deaths of children. Hamas has been responsible for deaths of children and adults within Palestine.

You don’t want to discuss nuance, but unfortunately the way to end these deaths is nuanced. You don’t want to discuss thousands of years of history, history that is extremely important to at least one side here. You seem to have a scenario which is very fixed in your mind, it’s rather like Labour, fixated on criticising the Tories but that’s all they can do, they have realistic means of solving any issues.

Most people are upset about the kids in Gaza but that doesn’t help anyone.

Oh - and yes I have studied International law. I seem to recall it’s one of the core topics. I suspect you haven’t.

I accepted your answer once it was given. I only clarified that I was not asking for any specifics.
'I have studied the law' and 'I'm a lawyer' are not the same. [See, I can make less black and white statements on some matters!]
I'm refusing to discuss how it ends because I have zero power of ending it. In the same way I'm refusing to discuss how we divide jurisdiction of Mars.

I can only express my emotional disturbance at continued extermination of people (it is currently very much one-sided) AND my disgust at the governments and media of the so-called 'civilised West' that displayed inimaginable level of hypocrysy.

I'm not inspired by Labour either, but that's another story.

@mumstheword223 In fact you are not allowed to take a DNA test in Israel without a court order as it is likely to show that the settlers have no roots to the land.

That's interesting.

Actually, the two things aren’t different. The definition of lawyer is one who practices OR studies the law. I deal with more international legal issues than your average solicitor or barrister.,so your point is pretty irrelevant (and incorrect)

So you are like 99.9% of people who are horrified about people dying in wars. That is really not a controversial view. So what are you hoping to get out of this thread? If you’re not bothered by the whys, any explanations as to the complexity of the situation, or understanding how the suffering might end for everyone involved what do you hope to add or get out of the conversation if your only view is simply one shared by much of humanity.

@Feelingathomenow ,

Are you seriosly hoping to find the resolution to the ME crisis on an MN thread?

It is interesting that people believe any crap spouted on social media. You might want to look at This. The comment made by that poster spreads false information and I suggest they get it removed and develop their critical thinking skills.

Im hoping to discuss to get a better understanding of a situation. So again, what do you want out of it, hand wringing and blaming the Jews?

@Feelingathomenow
What we see now can only waguely be called a war if we think of it as the long 1948 - now war. I think you stated earlier that you think it's a war and I disagree.
Any state actor who honestly considered the 2SS has recognised either both states or neither.
We have one military superpower supplying bombs and diplomatic protection to one side. What happens now is whatever they want.

Not only i despare when people are murdered, I hate it when my government supports the murder and lies to us.
As for me here, I'm trying not to go mad. A small thing but it kind of matters for me.

They didn't say it was blanket illegal, they said it needs a court order (which your own link confirms)..